The facts as to that capacity. As to you or I being able to form a conclusion based upon what is known today.

Say for example a person came to ATS and made the claim he was a very powerful mystic. His or her first post presents three events that elaborate upon
newsworthy events in a lot of detail. Within weeks the events do in fact occur and are presented in media.

Now is it possible this persons access to that information is not the result of he or she being a mystic?

To be clear, today we can all say with certainty is, that Aspirin, can treat a cure common headaches. As well as many, many other such issues. But in
relation to laying claim, with the perspective of certainty, in respect. To such lofty issues as we are discussing? That is another story.

Determining truth should be the more rigorous of investigations

Understanding in context that the population of a phenomenon is logical, portends to the conclusion that we know everything about it.

The OP presents the argument that random events as we observe in nature. Are limited in their capacity to express randomness, due to what are
fundamental aspects to reality. As in the example of dice or poker the nature of how randomness is expressed fall within the parameters inherent to
the two.

Now consider the example of Pi....

To begin with, we have to be careful what we mean by "random." Clearly pi is not "random" in the strict sense, because individual digits are
certainly not random but mathematically fixed. Perhaps a better and easier question is whether pi is "normal base 10," which means that each
digit, 0 through 9, appears, in the limit, precisely one tenth of the time; every two-digit string appears, in the limit, precisely one one-hundredth
of the time; and similarly for every other finite-length string. One can also ask whether pi is "normal base 2," which means that each binary digit (0
or 1) appears half of the time; each two-digit string appears one fourth of the time, etc.

He adds that "at the very least, we have shown why the digits of pi and log(2) appear to be random: because they are closely approximated by a type of
generator associated with the field of chaotic dynamics."

The title of this thread is "...CLEAR design of the universe". Nothing you or OP have offered up is anything of the sort. It's merely people
looking to science in an attempt to validate their personal beliefs. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted. Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then appear
to become random. The amount of time for which the behavior of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much
uncertainty we are willing to tolerate in the forecast; how accurately we are able to measure its current state; and a time scale depending on the
dynamics of the system, called the Lyapunov time. Some examples of Lyapunov times are: chaotic electrical circuits, ~1 millisecond; weather systems, a
couple of days (unproven); the solar system, 50 million years. In chaotic systems the uncertainty in a forecast increases exponentially with elapsed
time. Hence doubling the forecast time squares the proportional uncertainty in the forecast. This means that in practice a meaningful prediction
cannot be made over an interval of more than two or three times the Lyapunov time. When meaningful predictions cannot be made, the system appears
to be random.[8]

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.